Filed under: A Bit Of Inspiration, Advertising, America, Attitude & Aptitude, China, Comment, Complicity, Context, Creative Development, Creativity, Culture, Diversity, Empathy, Government, Insight, Marketing, Marketing Fail, Perspective, Politics, The Kennedys, The Kennedys Shanghai, Wieden+Kennedy
Recently I read a comment on a post Zoe Scaman had written about democracy.
Her point was – with social media companies bending to Trump’s will – we were witnessing the crumbling of established and vital democratic systems. Most people were in violent agreement until someone wrote this comment:
“Can you elaborate on ‘democratic systems are crumbling’ please? My in-laws were born and raised in Russia, and they believe Venezuela is doing great and Cuba is heaven”.
It was not just a good point, but an important point one. Not said to insult or embarrass, but to simply remind us that context is everything and rarely is it experienced equally.
I say this because it reminded me of a similar situation I experienced a few years back… except, unlike Zoe, there was no legitimate reason not to have considered this from the beginning given I’d been living in China for a long time.
You see, back when Trump was running for his first Presidency, I was running The Kennedys at Wieden+Kennedy Shanghai.
Because the election was a hot topic, I set them the challenge of creating a campaign to tell voters Trump was a monster.
For a few days The Kennedys went about researching more about who Trump was until one day they asked if they could have a chat to me.
“We don’t get the assignment” they said with genuinely confused and harassed looks on their faces.
I must admit, my first impression to this was consternation, until they added:
“Maybe Trump is a bad person but America gets to vote who they want to run their country and that seems amazing”
Basically, they couldn’t understand the task because as bad as Trump may be, the brief was still about democracy and democracy is good. Especially when you don’t have it.
[As an aside, a young, brilliant Chinese planner once described the Government as ‘Rock n’ Roll’ and when I asked why, they replied, “you told me Rock n’ Roll is doing what you like and not caring what others think and there’s no better description of the Chinese Governments attitude and behaviour”]
Anyway, when they said that to me, I realized just how badly I had fucked up – not them.
That I’d made the cardinal sin of taking my context for granted. That I’d assumed everyone understood and appreciated the context and situation I was asking them to embrace and communicate.
And I was obviously wrong.
I’d made the most basic of fucking mistakes – albeit one practiced by most companies and marketing departments around the World.
And I hated myself for it ….
But as they say, it’s only a mistake if you don’t learn from it and I learned from it. Big time.
A lesson that I remind myself – or remind my colleagues/clients/researchers – literally everytime we talk about people, situations and contexts.
And while Zoe wasn’t as naïve as I was – because for her, it was more about how she phrased her point rather than being ignorant to the wider issue – she has also likely learned from it. A lesson that will make her even better than she already is – which is more than can be said about the people who voted for Trump again, even though I have far more understanding and even respect for why they did it rather than just assuming ignorance and racism.
Anyway, the reason for this post is that I recently saw a tweet that reflected how young Chinese people see Americans – in relation to the most recent election – and I found it fascinating. Because rather than viewing ‘democracy’ as freedom of choice, they now see it as something else … something that not only may be the best take on what modern democracy is, but also explains why all the social media companies have been so desperate to bend to the will of the new administration and why Trump [as much as I hate to admit this] probably understands how modern communication works more than most media and ad agencies.
Have a look at this and remember, what’s normal for you may be abnormal for everyone else.
Filed under: A Bit Of Inspiration, Advertising, Agency Culture, Aspiration, Attitude & Aptitude, Brand, Brand Suicide, China, Cliches, Clothes, Comment, Communication Strategy, Complicity, Consultants, Context, Craft, Crap Products In History, Creative Development, Creativity, Culture, Cynic, Delusion, Distinction, Equality, Fake Attitude, Imposter Syndrome, London, Perspective, Planning, Point Of View, Professionalism, Relevance, Reputation, Resonance, Respect, Wieden+Kennedy
This is a post about naming strategies.
Yes, I know I’ve talked about this before.
A lot of times before.
The processes.
The considerations.
The complications.
… but mainly it’s been about how certain branding consultancies charge an absolute fortune to come up with some utter nonsensical bullshit that they back up with 1000’s of pages of self-serving pseudo-science bullshit and still end up creating something pants. Kind of like the explanation of the Pepsi rebrand from 15 years ago. Or most Linkedin ‘guru’ pontification.
But the other side of this is when people choose to put no effort in whatsoever.
Hiding their recommendation behind terms such as ‘colloquial context’ or ‘cultural vernacular’.
Don’t get me wrong, there are times where a stripped back approach can be powerful.
A way to connect to society by taking their cultural references and contexts head-on.
Hell, cynic used to embrace an approach that we literally called, ‘unplanned‘.
However, while this was about removing any element of pomposity, it still had to elevate how people saw or connected to what we did. Any fool can churn out lowest common denominator stuff … but it takes a certain amount of skill and flair to develop something that not only connects and engages the masses, but does it in a way where the value of the product/brand is increased and improved to all.
We used to call this ‘massperation’ … which still makes me feel sick even today, hahahaha.
I say all this to justify something I saw recently.
Or should I say something Otis saw recently.
You see down the road from us there’s a house being built.
It’s in full-on construction mode and as it is on the way to Otis’ school, he passes it every day.
Anyway, one day he came and told me he’d seen the building site loo and was shocked with its name.
It was this:
That’s right, it’s called the ‘Shitbox’.
To be honest, I’m not sure if Otis should have been more surprised at the name or the fact it proudly states it’s a ‘high viz’ toilet box.
HIGH FUCKING VIZ!
Is the toilet going to be walking along the street late at night? Do builders have such bad eyesight they can’t find a 6 foot high toilet without it being painted bright orange? Are construction workers such bad drivers they need to be warned of where the portaloos are so as not to hit them?
WHAT THE ACTUAL FUCK?
Anyway, I digress.
The point is that while calling the portaloo a ‘shitbox’ may make sense … I can’t help but feel it is also playing into the builder cliche. Sure, cliches happen because they represent a common behavior or attitude that is played out over a sustained period of time … but often this is only a ‘perceived’ behavior or attitude [usually promoted by an individual or organisation who have found a way to monetise the acceptance of this view] that victimizes anyone who does not live upto the cliche.
I appreciate you may think I’ve gone full-on woke … but apart from the fact I don’t think considering others is a bad thing, I see this behaviour over and over again.
Hell, even Jaguar – with their ‘interesting’ rebrand did it by revealing their new concept cars in pink and blue.
PINK AND FUCKING BLUE.
They made such a big deal about how they ‘delete ordinary’, ‘break moulds’ and ‘copy nothing’ and then they actively, loudly and proudly reinforce the most basic of gender stereotypes. On the World fucking stage!
I totally appreciate you can go over-the-top with this stuff – especially given this whole post was inspired by a building site portaloo. I also get people may think I am suggesting we should name products/brands with words that offer no defining characteristic to avoid any potential stereotype. But neither of those are what I’m trying to say.
All I am attempting to point out is that words matter. And while I fully appreciate naming is a difficult task, I find it fascinating companies spend millions on ‘solutions’ that tend to fall into either pompous, basic or made-up.
Or said another way, names that define, limit or pander rather than celebrate those who use them and the reasons they do.
Filed under: Advertising, Agency Culture, Attitude & Aptitude, Audacious, Brand, Brand Suicide, China, Comment, Context, Creativity, Culture, Design, Differentiation, Imagination, Innovation, Marketing, Marketing Fail, Relevance, Reputation, Resonance, Retail
One thing I’ve always hated about my discipline was how so many liked to talk about curiosity like we are the only people to embrace it.
Not just in advertising, but across all humanity.
That said, curiosity has seemingly taken a backseat in terms of aspiration …
These days it seems we our desperate to feel/suggest we are the smartest people in the room.
That we can solve any problem given to us – regardless of category, culture or context.
As my old man used to say, ‘people who are desperate to let everyone know how smart they are, aren’t that smart’ … and right now, it feels like we’re drowning in those people.
I’m not saying they’re not clever, but they’re not as smart as they like to think they are.
Believing that because they’re good at one thing, they’re good at everything.
Researchers who think they know how to create great creativity … despite never creating anything. Strategists who think they know what people want … despite never spending any time with people. Creatives who think they can make any business successful … despite never running a business. Sure, I’m exaggerating the point to make the point [especially as there are a few people in each of the examples, who are the exception] but you get the idea …
You see it everywhere, especially on Linkedin.
That doesn’t mean they don’t have valid opinions.
That doesn’t mean their experience doesn’t have value.
But putting aside the people who literally have never achieved anything of note yet speak like they’re God … the moment you think only you have the answer and everyone else is wrong and ‘doesn’t get it’ then that’s when you’re become the beast you were meant to slay.
The reason for this rant is that I saw something recently that is so devilishly brilliant, it serves as a good reminder that just because we are paid to do a specific role in the marketing space, doesn’t mean we have the monopoly on good ideas.
This was it …
Evil? Yep.
Bad parenting? Possibly.
Smart thinking? Absolutely.
Of course, I’ve talked a lot about Chinese ingenuity over the years.
For a culture that often describes itself as practical rather than creative, it’s one of the most creative places I’ve ever lived.
Not just by the typical definitions, but in terms of business, food, innovation and motivation …
Sure, there are many examples where the approach taken is more about exploitation than liberation – which is true all over the world – anyone who has lived there for any period of time will know that far from being ‘behind Western standards’, in many ways they’re far ahead.
And while there are many things that have contributed to its momentum, its belief in ‘cumulative progress rather than the wait for perfect’ is a big part of it.
Back in 2007, I wrote about ‘unplanning‘.
In essence, it was about putting the rigor into ensuring you are removing all the unnecessary bullshit around an issue to identify the heart of the problem that needs solving.
The reason it was called unplanned, is because the solution – while creative as fuck – also felt obvious as hell, even though it only was able to be that because you’d trimmed off all the fluff and fat that often causes distraction and deviation.
Given we are surrounded by models, systems, pundits and egos all proclaiming to have the ultimate answer to every problem known to man – despite the fact many have never done anything of note and brands, creativity and the ad industry are losing their value, relevance and impact at an alarming rate – maybe the best thing we could do for our collective future is to stop looking inwards and start looking out, because there we are reminded creativity starts with how you think and see the world, not which property process you follow.
Filed under: Advertising, Agency Culture, Attitude & Aptitude, Brand, Brand Suicide, Collaboration, Colleagues, Comment, Communication Strategy, Complicity, Context, Craft, Creative Development, Creativity, Culture, Documentary, Emotion, Empathy, Equality, Management, Marketing, Music, Perspective, Provocative, Purpose, Relationships, Relevance, Reputation, Respect, Standards, Strategy, Stubborness, Stupid, Success, Teamwork
A while back, I did some work for the rock band Journey.
The ‘Don’t Stop Believin’ mob.
Anyway, without going into too much detail – though a lot of what I’m going to say is common knowledge so I’m not contravening my NDA, and trust me, I asked – it was a rather tension-filled experience.
Not Red Hot Chili Peppers – or should I say Anthony Kiedis – levels of tension, but definitely not chill, put it that way – hahaha.
This time though, it had nothing to do with me and everything to do with 2 of the band members being at loggerheads.
As I said, the fracture in their relationship has been well documented – and I had been warned before hand – but by the time I was involved with them, it was bordering on toxic.
At this point I feel I should point out they were nothing but kind and considerate to me, but like a guest at a dinner party hosted by a couple who had obviously had a major row prior to your arrival – you could feel the tension in every interaction.
But this is less about that and more about the management teams amazing ability to facilitate and negotiate a truce.
Obviously I can’t go into the specifics, but I watched something magical literally unfold in front of my eyes,
Think of it like a cross between the lessons in the hostage negotiation book, ‘Never Split The Difference’, and Kim Papworth.
For those who don’t know who Kim is, he’s the brilliant ex-ECD of Wieden+Kennedy London – and longtime partner to the brilliant-but-bonkers Tony Davidson – who had this incredible ability to keep ideas he believed in on the table … even when clients were initially protesting against them. But here’s the thing about him that was so good.
It was never through bombastic actions.
Never through threats or intimidation.
Never through pandering or false promises.
But always through listening, then gently providing context, clarity, understanding and perspective.
Nudging them forward, rather than pushing them back.
This is similar to what I saw with Journey, with the result of this approach being this:
I have to say the ability to achieve this outcome was inconceivable to me..
Let’s be honest, you can tell from the tweet that it was not something that was easy. Hell, you can tell from the tweet it was not something even the band members expected to achieve.
But it happened because of the work of the management team – who happen to also be Metallica’s long-term management, so are well versed in knowing how to deal with ‘human differences’ as well as musical ones.
Anyway, having seen this happen up close and personal, I can tell you it is more than a skill, but an art. Well, that and starting the whole process with the steadfast belief there was a solution to be found, even if it no one knewwhere, how or when it would happen.
[I wrote another post about this sort of mindset, also involving hostage negotiator, here]
But it is these two criteria that allowed them to help take opposing forces on a journey they likely never imagined they could go on, let alone initially want to. But to achieve that and then get them to be thankful for it while never feeling pushed, cornered, provoked or bullied … is, to put it bluntly, fucking incredible.
I say all this is because I feel too often the way our industry deals with conflict is with more conflict. Or, alternatively, just putting our collective heads in the sand.
Sure, there are occasions – and individuals – where you have to be aggressive.
As Gloria Allred – the powerful US lawyer, of which there is an interesting documentary about her – once said: “Sometimes, power responds to power”.
But that has to be the exception rather than the rule.
In the vast majority of cases, the goal should never be one person gets battered into submission by the other. The key objective has to be ensuring you have properly listened and understood the issues causing the friction … because with this, you can then help both sides appreciate, value and identify what a mutually advantageous outcome could offer for both parties so they feel positive about taking a step closer towards each other.
I say this like you are an intermediary, but I also mean it when you are the one in the conflict.
Now of course this approach won’t always work, but too often our default setting is ‘submit or savage’ and frankly, no one really wins when we adopt either stance.
I appreciate for some people reading this, they’ll be thinking I have a hell of a nerve writing all this when I can have an argument in an empty house – however, over the years I have [slowly] learned that if you want to increase the odds of making great work actually happen, it’s not just about being good at your job … or having taste … or identifying and valuing a good idea you fine tune with craft … you need to know how to deal and address conflict.
Doesn’t matter what job you have.
Doesn’t matter how long you’ve been doing it.
Doesn’t even matter what level of role you’re in.
The fact is, great opportunities are born more from unity, than friction.
So if you want to ensure you keep the tension in the work, rather than the relationship … learn the art of conflict resolution, because that will do more to help you actually create great work, brands and careers than any marketing process or ‘alleged’ mini MBA.
There’s no blog posts till Monday as there’s another holiday in NZ [I know, I know] … so have a great weekend and try not to get into any trouble.
Or if you do, use the context from this post to practice getting out of it, haha.
Filed under: A Bit Of Inspiration, Advertising, Age, Apathy, Attitude & Aptitude, Cars, Cliches, Comment, Complicity, Confidence, Creativity, Culture, Delusion, Effectiveness, Innovation, Insight, Leadership, Management, Marketing, Marketing Fail, New Product Mentalness, Perspective, Planners, Planning, Provocative, Relevance, Research, Resonance, Strategy, Success, Technology
One of the things I find hilarious about a lot of strategists, agencies and companies is how they talk about their openness towards innovation, but do all they can to maintain the status quo.
Oh, they’ll claim they give things a chance, it’s just their version of doing that is to immediately compare/judge any new approach against ways of working that have literally had decades to evolve and iron out any quirks … and so, generally, it is always going to end up being the unfairest of unfair fights.
However sometimes dismissal is not even about a lack of effectiveness.
Many times, it’s driven more by personal ego … where rejection occurs because a particular individual fears that any new methodology may result in them losing power and control and because of that, they’re openly hostile [and subjective] to anything being presented for consideration.
So what happens is the industry invents terminology that allows them to feel they’re being innovative but actually it’s all about conformity.
It’s why we hear the word ‘transformation’ banded about so much.
Oh when you hear that you think of acceleration … revolution … category redefinition … but what does it tend to really mean?
That’s right … it’s companies who have been left behind by years of ignorance/arrogance/complacently who finally realise they need to get their shit together so spend a fuckton of cash simply to be where everyone else has already been. The irony with this approach is that despite making such a big deal of their ‘transformation’, they still end up behind their competition because while they’ve been trying to play catch up, everyone else has been moving forward. Again.
But just as much as fearing innovation is harmful to your growth and potential, so is blindly accepting whatever new thing is available to you.
Far too often we’ve seen some companies embrace the new, shiny thing for the simple reason they want to be associated with the new, shiny thing.
Worse, they embrace it and then talk about it like it’s the finished article only to quietly move things aside when [1] they realise it may be shiny, but it’s not worthy or [2] there’s a newer, shinier thing that they need to be seen aligning themselves with.
Sadly adland is one of the worst at this. But so are the tech industries. And basically everyone on Linkedin, hahaha.
New is wonderful. It needs embracing, celebrating and championing. But most of all it needs patience and objectivity.
Patience for the idea to evolve, develop and see where it can go or goes.
Objectivity for you to be able to assess without bias, whether you’re dealing with hype or hope … allowing you the clarity to know if you have to protect it or kill it.
The last thing to remember is that sometimes, the thing an idea needs to work is ‘good timing’.
When I was younger, I never believed it when people [read: girlfriends, haha] said it was ‘bad timing’.
I thought it was just their way of getting out of seeing me.
And maybe it was … however as I got older, I’ve realized timing is a thing. Often an intangible, unexplainable, unmovable thing.
It may be driven by coincidence. It may be driven by circumstance. It may be driven by attitudinal shifts. But there are countless examples of ideas that were made or died because of timing, regardless of who was behind it, how much they spent on it or their history in doing it.
One of my favorite examples is the Toyota Prius.
The general view is Toyota launched the car in response to societies increased awareness of the car being a threat to the environment.
It may be true, after all the concept of the electric car had been around well before Toyota launched the Prius, albeit with continual failure.
[As an aside, there’s a documentary entitled ‘Who Killed The Electric Car’ that is well worth a watch]
However, I was told the development of the Prius had nothing to do with environmental concerns and was a byproduct of Toyota experimenting with their engineering capabilities. By pure chance, they developed a viable electric car at a time where society was changing/evolving … both in terms of environmental awareness but also economic situation. In essence, Prius was a happy accident of timing rather than forward planning.
As with most things, history has a million different authors … but given the Prius was so far ahead of other car manufacturers – and very different to Toyota’s traditional approach to car manufacturing – it feels there may be legitimacy as to how and why it succeeded and it had very little to do with being culturally aware.
Whatever the answer, the issue of ‘new’ is a complex one.
Too many people dismiss it.
Too many people fawn over it.
All I know is we should value it and respect it.
That doesn’t mean you can’t challenge or question, but in a world where everyone wants to give their hot take in the blink-of-an-eye, the smart people give ‘new’ the time to surprise and evolve as well as remember that on the occasions something doesn’t work out, they acknowledge it may not be the idea, but the times.
And times are always changing.
Just ask the horse. Or Ed Klein.